The Case For Killing The Camp Fire

Replies

You think somebody who doesn't like forest fires shouldn't use a computer? And that makes sense to you?

Makes sense to me.

Pareto in a practical application.

Concern over campfire and not cigarettes or the power plant shows a concern of optics over reality.

No one smokes in my home, and it'll illegal indoors in public places, even within 25 get off a door. Cigarettes don't affect the air quality here. Smoke from wild fires prevents is from seeing things a mile away during August every year.

But that's not what anyone is saying. We are saying that the 100,000+ acre fire is started more often by discarded cigarette butts or by in another posters augment, lightning. So banning campfires is going to do little to resolve the issue. And if the issue is big enough, then we need to ban all things that cause this, not just one or two that are something the author feels he can do without. Stay on point and stop trying to move the discussion to fit your argument.

People shouldn't be throwing their cigarette butts on the ground, that's littering. I don't disagree with you on that.

Do you have any data to show that more giant fires are caused by cigarettes than by careless campers? Or am I supposed to take your word on that? Because as a hiker, you occasionally find somebody else's smouldering campfire.

Forest fires are on the rise largely due to increased burdensome regulations, so undergrowth is more prominent. Harvesting is not as frequent and creation of reservoirs is an impossibility. Trees were once harvested on a 30-50 year cycle and this is down 60%.

Review of objective evidence suggests that forest fires will rise regardless, but campfires make for a nice scapegoat.

One commonality among all humans is that we are almost always concerned with the wrong things.

Re the pollution aspect of just the campfire itself (not referring to wildfires).
What would you say pollutes the air more? My burning of a few logs while I'm camping or the power plant burning enough coal to power my lights, television, etc. that I would be using had I stayed home?

Before the industrial revolution, we did basically everything with fire. Cooking, cleaning, heating our homes, lighting our homes...all done with fire.
The number of campfires you see in a park can seem significant on the surface but when you put it in context of how much fire we used to use and how much we burn in fossil fuels now when not using a fire, it becomes clear that campfires are not a true contributor to air pollution overall.

Forest fires are on the rise largely due to increased burdensome regulations, so undergrowth is more prominent. Harvesting is not as frequent and creation of reservoirs is an impossibility. Trees were once harvested on a 30-50 year cycle and this is down 60%.

Review of objective evidence suggests that forest fires will rise regardless, but campfires make for a nice scapegoat.

One commonality among all humans is that we are almost always concerned with the wrong things.

Let's keep this discussion fact based, not faith based please.

...by disregarding the fact that environmental regulations have increased? Doing so would not follow the scientific method.

You have to follow the evidence, especially when it challenges your presumptive beliefs.

You think somebody who doesn't like forest fires shouldn't use a computer? And that makes sense to you?

Makes sense to me.

Pareto in a practical application.

Concern over campfire and not cigarettes or the power plant shows a concern of optics over reality.

No one smokes in my home, and it'll illegal indoors in public places, even within 25 get off a door. Cigarettes don't affect the air quality here. Smoke from wild fires prevents is from seeing things a mile away during August every year.

But that's not what anyone is saying. We are saying that the 100,000+ acre fire is started more often by discarded cigarette butts or by in another posters augment, lightning. So banning campfires is going to do little to resolve the issue. And if the issue is big enough, then we need to ban all things that cause this, not just one or two that are something the author feels he can do without. Stay on point and stop trying to move the discussion to fit your argument.

People shouldn't be throwing their cigarette butts on the ground, that's littering. I don't disagree with you on that.

Do you have any data to show that more giant fires are caused by cigarettes than by careless campers? Or am I supposed to take your word on that? Because as a hiker, you occasionally find somebody else's smouldering campfire.

Hmm, I haven't seen you post any stats to back up that careless campers are the problem either though. I'm going by what news I've read when they are detailing some of them up in Canada and charge laid against people. Doing an internet search, most articles and readings on the topic start with the mention of throwing cigarette butts, not campfires, often campfires being one of the later mentioned after things like downed power lines, machine fires, etc. I don't think you'll find many statistic based articles on the exact reason other than it was human or naturally created. In Canada its almost 50/50 although human created fires account for only about 1/3 (33%) of what is burnt each year simply because human created ones are usually found in more easily accessible areas making them easier to fight and quicker to find.

Thomas Swetnam, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona who studies forest fires, tells Doyle Rice at USA Today that it’s not necessarily the case that more people are maliciously setting fires or that Smokey Bear has failed in his mission to educate the public. Instead, Swetnam says that climate change is the biggest driver of increased fires. An increase in drought, fuel buildup in unburned forests, earlier springs and higher temperatures are all contributing to more combustible forests. So the same actions that might have caused a small, easily extinguished fire decades ago are now creating dangerous infernos.

“[This is a] very well done study," he said. "We have known for a long time that fires set by people are an extremely important factor in the wildfire problems, but this study shows in detail how important people are in lengthening the fire season and contributing to increasing numbers of large wildfires.”

Rice reports that debris burning starts the most human-caused fires, at 29 percent, with arson the cause of 21 percent of fires. Equipment use causes 11 percent of fires, while campfires and children playing with fireworks or matches each cause 5 percent of fires. The Fourth of July, predictably, is the biggest day for wildfires, with 7,762 fires ignited on that date over the 21-year study period.

Balch tells Joyce that there is a solution. She suggests conducting more prescribed burns on forest land to decrease the amount of fuel in the forests after 100 years of fire suppression.

You have to our down the librarian dogma and live in the real world, so we might as well take about reality too.

Fires are not caused by regulations against polluting, and they're not because people don't rake the woods enough.

There isn't much dogma I adhere to other than sticking with what works. Is Dewey decimal system considered dogmatic? In nearly all solutions a balanced approach has the best chance of doing the most good.

The forests in the pacific NorthWest were largely privately managed and cleared of brush to minimize risk. The owners had a vested interest. Now these are publicly managed, no vested interest, and under increasing regulation. As you state the dogma of human intervention has been taken too far, where controlled burns or other means of brush elimination would limit greater risk.

It isn't the pollution regulations, but specifically environmental impact regulations which are at the root of this. The pendulum has swung too far and a new golden mean needs to be established.

What started the fire is not a root cause as it will happen by environmental means at some point.

You think somebody who doesn't like forest fires shouldn't use a computer? And that makes sense to you?

Makes sense to me.

Pareto in a practical application.

Concern over campfire and not cigarettes or the power plant shows a concern of optics over reality.

No one smokes in my home, and it'll illegal indoors in public places, even within 25 get off a door. Cigarettes don't affect the air quality here. Smoke from wild fires prevents is from seeing things a mile away during August every year.

But that's not what anyone is saying. We are saying that the 100,000+ acre fire is started more often by discarded cigarette butts or by in another posters augment, lightning. So banning campfires is going to do little to resolve the issue. And if the issue is big enough, then we need to ban all things that cause this, not just one or two that are something the author feels he can do without. Stay on point and stop trying to move the discussion to fit your argument.

People shouldn't be throwing their cigarette butts on the ground, that's littering. I don't disagree with you on that.

Do you have any data to show that more giant fires are caused by cigarettes than by careless campers? Or am I supposed to take your word on that? Because as a hiker, you occasionally find somebody else's smouldering campfire.

Hmm, I haven't seen you post any stats to back up that careless campers are the problem either though. I'm going by what news I've read when they are detailing some of them up in Canada and charge laid against people. Doing an internet search, most articles and readings on the topic start with the mention of throwing cigarette butts, not campfires, often campfires being one of the later mentioned after things like downed power lines, machine fires, etc. I don't think you'll find many statistic based articles on the exact reason other than it was human or naturally created. In Canada its almost 50/50 although human created fires account for only about 1/3 (33%) of what is burnt each year simply because human created ones are usually found in more easily accessible areas making them easier to fight and quicker to find.

I could find you several dozen more examples like this. But that would be a waste of time because I'm not in favor of cigarettes causing wildfires, I'm against that too.

I'll repeat, as a hiker, it's sadly too common to find an abandoned, smouldering camp fire in the woods.

It's nothing but whataboutism to say well we shouldn't care about this problem because I can think of a different problem.

The Diamond Creek Fire was a wildfire in the Pasayten Wilderness, Okanogan County, Washington, that began with an improperly extinguished campfire on July 23, 2017.[1][2][3] In July, the fire threatened historic cabins with destruction.[4] On August 31, it spread to Canada in an area between Cathedral Provincial Park and Manning Provincial Park.[5] On September 6, it grew beyond 100,000 acres to become a megafire. The fire was contained on October 23, 2017.[6]

Olympic National Park, Olympic National Forest and Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Moderate to Severe Drought; Above Normal Potential for Wildfire

Olympic National Park, Olympic National Forest and Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest are experiencing moderate to severe drought conditions. Temperature and precipitation outlooks continue to indicate warm, dry conditions extending through the summer season. This had led to above normal potential for significant fire activity.

Federal land managers are monitoring the situation closely and are prepared for an active fire season. There has been close communication and coordination with federal, state, and local resources to ensure prompt response to any reported fires.

If conditions continue to worsen, some level of fire restrictions will most likely be implemented. The purpose is to reduce the ignition potential during periods of high fire danger. These restrictions are coordinated amongst land managers to ensure clear communication to park and forest visitors.

The public is urged to be aware of the increasing fire danger and take precautions to ensure fire safety. Visitors to national parks and forests should always use caution to prevent human-caused wildfires. To reduce the risk, please consider the following:

· Fireworks are prohibited on federal public lands.

· Before going camping, learn of any fire restrictions in place and never leave a campfire unattended. Ensure campfires are completely out before leaving the camping area.

· If smoking, always dispose of cigarette debris in some type of an ashtray.

To report a fire dial 911. Updated fire danger and fire information will be posted on the park and forest websites.

I suppose we should also be considering requiring all power companies to remove their power lines as well, since they have been known to spark wild fires - and recently.

I don't think there's any winning this debate with NorthCascades, he's obviously one of those I'm right whether I am or not. We've shown him studies, proved our arguments and yet he's still holding onto it even though he's shown zero proof of his argument, other than pointing to one single fire that was simply proven to be man made, exact cause from what I can find undetermined. I assume he was wronged by someone sitting by a campfire one night, perhaps shot down by a pretty lady and has decided that he just hates campfires. I guess according to his logic, since I once saw an Albino moose, it must mean all moose are white. Makes sense to me. Since because he's seen a campfire smoldering, all people who start campfires are obviously going to burn down the forest (essentially his argument).

I suppose we should also be considering requiring all power companies to remove their power lines as well, since they have been known to spark wild fires - and recently.

I don't think there's any winning this debate with NorthCascades, he's obviously one of those I'm right whether I am or not. We've shown him studies, proved our arguments and yet he's still holding onto it even though he's shown zero proof of his argument, other than pointing to one single fire that was simply proven to be man made, exact cause from what I can find undetermined. I assume he was wronged by someone sitting by a campfire one night, perhaps shot down by a pretty lady and has decided that he just hates campfires. I guess according to his logic, since I once saw an Albino moose, it must mean all moose are white. Makes sense to me. Since because he's seen a campfire smoldering, all people who start campfires are obviously going to burn down the forest (essentially his argument).

I kind of figured that. I mean, no one is arguing that no wildfires are ever caused by campfires - we all agree that some have been of course, as in the case that was cited, but the argument has been that campfires are not a number one cause of wildfires and don't need to be singled out as an exclusive cause, which has also been noted in the over all study that was also cited, and that there are things that are much more destructive than campfires. From what I've seen, banning all campfires wouldn't make much of a dent in the number of wildfires started each year.

And I agree with CSARdiver - more regulation just causes more problems than it helps, which is why I say instead of creating more regulation, lets just enforce the ones we already have in place. And if the argument is that those regulations aren't working to catch the people who are being careless with their campfires, I ask how would an outright ban be any different? If you have hikers who are leaving their campfires smoldering now and you can't prove who did it, then how are you going to prove that a certain hiker started a campfire in spite of the ban? Do we start using satellites to track the movements of every single person in this country so we can prove who was where when? People tend to like to flaunt the rules and resist being told what they can't do (i.e. why we have a huge drug trade problem in spite of laws against drugs). So banning campfires isn't going to stop wildfires from being started by them. And if a wildfire is started by someone being negligent or careless with a campfire, the current laws already in place will hold them culpable for that fire and has penalties already in place.

But we all have are own little micro-world that we live in which guides our perception of the world beyond us, and its very easy to see factors that may be largely impactful in our own little community and think that they are so everywhere; it can be eye opening if one takes a step back and looks at the big picture beyond our own n-1 experience and perceptions. I live in rural Appalachia, and I can guarantee you that things that would make a huge difference here won't be much help for folks living in more urban areas or out on the plains; I wish my company (which happens to be a power company owned by a large holding company in Ohio) would realize that and quit trying to enforce policies that work wonderfully in flat Ohio but are horrible and time consuming for the more mountainous regions of their territory - I got news for the execs in their ivory tower above the clouds - the topography of the whole world is NOT like Ohio! ahem, but I digress.....

I suppose that is one thing that does make policy making so difficult, because what would make a huge difference in one region and for which there may be a lobby pushing mightily to achieve, may not actually have much of an impact on the whole country as a whole, but sometimes that gets muddied when politics and personal emotions get into the picture.

I suppose we should also be considering requiring all power companies to remove their power lines as well, since they have been known to spark wild fires - and recently.

I don't think there's any winning this debate with NorthCascades, he's obviously one of those I'm right whether I am or not. We've shown him studies, proved our arguments and yet he's still holding onto it even though he's shown zero proof of his argument, other than pointing to one single fire that was simply proven to be man made, exact cause from what I can find undetermined. I assume he was wronged by someone sitting by a campfire one night, perhaps shot down by a pretty lady and has decided that he just hates campfires. I guess according to his logic, since I once saw an Albino moose, it must mean all moose are white. Makes sense to me. Since because he's seen a campfire smoldering, all people who start campfires are obviously going to burn down the forest (essentially his argument).

I kind of figured that. I mean, no one is arguing that no wildfires are ever caused by campfires - we all agree that some have been of course, as in the case that was cited, but the argument has been that campfires are not a number one cause of wildfires and don't need to be singled out as an exclusive cause, which has also been noted in the over all study that was also cited, and that there are things that are much more destructive than campfires. From what I've seen, banning all campfires wouldn't make much of a dent in the number of wildfires started each year.

And I agree with CSARdiver - more regulation just causes more problems than it helps, which is why I say instead of creating more regulation, lets just enforce the ones we already have in place. And if the argument is that those regulations aren't working to catch the people who are being careless with their campfires, I ask how would an outright ban be any different? If you have hikers who are leaving their campfires smoldering now and you can't prove who did it, then how are you going to prove that a certain hiker started a campfire in spite of the ban? Do we start using satellites to track the movements of every single person in this country so we can prove who was where when? People tend to like to flaunt the rules and resist being told what they can't do (i.e. why we have a huge drug trade problem in spite of laws against drugs). So banning campfires isn't going to stop wildfires from being started by them. And if a wildfire is started by someone being negligent or careless with a campfire, the current laws already in place will hold them culpable for that fire and has penalties already in place.

But we all have are own little micro-world that we live in which guides our perception of the world beyond us, and its very easy to see factors that may be largely impactful in our own little community and think that they are so everywhere; it can be eye opening if one takes a step back and looks at the big picture beyond our own n-1 experience and perceptions. I live in rural Appalachia, and I can guarantee you that things that would make a huge difference here won't be much help for folks living in more urban areas or out on the plains; I wish my company (which happens to be a power company owned by a large holding company in Ohio) would realize that and quit trying to enforce policies that work wonderfully in flat Ohio but are horrible and time consuming for the more mountainous regions of their territory - I got news for the execs in their ivory tower above the clouds - the topography of the whole world is NOT like Ohio! ahem, but I digress.....

I suppose that is one thing that does make policy making so difficult, because what would make a huge difference in one region and for which there may be a lobby pushing mightily to achieve, may not actually have much of an impact on the whole country as a whole, but sometimes that gets muddied when politics and personal emotions get into the picture.

Yep my granpappy always said, rules really only work for the honest folks, and in almost all cases, the honest folks are not the ones causing the problems. The drug trade is a good example. Murder is another. We need more critical thinkers like yourself and less let's jump to conclusions folks making the rules as we've gotten too far out of control. I tip my hat to you! You have my respect and thanks!

Forest fires are on the rise largely due to increased burdensome regulations, so undergrowth is more prominent. Harvesting is not as frequent and creation of reservoirs is an impossibility. Trees were once harvested on a 30-50 year cycle and this is down 60%.

Review of objective evidence suggests that forest fires will rise regardless, but campfires make for a nice scapegoat.

One commonality among all humans is that we are almost always concerned with the wrong things.

^^agreed

not to mention the fact that we're now finding out that the forest needs the fires and are actually good for the ecosystem

controlled burns have been a common practice in conservation. as far as forest fires, will the forest recover? yes but nature starts it's own fires(lightening) and don't need us to help

We camp. Allot. In the mountains where it is cold. Usually at the end of the day I want a hot cup of tea or something stronger, and we forgo the fire for several reasons. We are lazy and don't want to stay up till it goes out. The smoke always seems to enter our tent or follow you wherever you are sitting. I have asthma. Most of the signage and advice of the national forest is, please consider not lighting one, there is problems with forest fires. A fire doesn't add much to our experience.